A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature

A STUDY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN LITERATURE BY

JACK P. LEWIS Professor of Bible, Harding College Graduate School of Religion Memphis, Tennessee

LEIDEN E. J . BRILL 1978

First edition 1 9 6 8 P.eprinted 1 9 7 8

ISBN 90 0 4 05498 7 Copyright 1968 by E.J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this hook may he reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED I N T H E NETHERLANDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE

vn

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

nc

INTRODUCTION

1

I. NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN THE BIBLE IL

III.

IV.

3

NOAH IN THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA OF THE

O.T

10

THE FLOOD IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH WRITERS

42

A. Philo of Alexandria

42

1 . The Literal Noah. . .

43

2 . The Allegorical Noah

58

B . Pseudo-Philo

74

C . Josephus

77

THE FLOOD IN THE EARLY VERSIONS

82

A. The Greek Versions 1. 2. 3. 4.

82

The Septuagint Aquila Theodotian Symmachus

82 88 90 90

B . The Aramaic Versions

.

1 . Targum of Onkelos 2 . Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan 3 . Jerusalem Targum V. VI.

EARLY CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FLOOD. . THE RABBINIC NOAH

92 92 95 99

.

•

101 121

VI VII.

TABLE THE FLOOD AND LATER CHRISTIAN SPIRITUAL EXEGESIS

CONCLUSION

156

181

APPENDIX

A . Index of Scripture Passages on the Flood in the Works of Philo B . The Noah Commandments C

The Chronology of the Flood

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. . 183 186 ' . . 190 193

PREFACE The following study which was first presented to Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1962 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree in Hebraic and Cognate Studies, is now presented to the public in hope that its collection of material may be of benefit to other scholars who are interested in this area of biblical studies. I hereby acknowledge to the college a deep debt for the Louis M. Rabinowitz, J . Clarence Workum Memorial, and Mary E. Horowitz Foundation interfaith fellowships which were successively granted me in the three years 1951-1954, and which made my studies at the college possible. In addition to a lasting debt to all members of the faculty, I am further indebted to Dr. Samuel Sandmel who first suggested to me this area of study, who served as referee for the dissertation, and who made many helpful suggestions in the course of its preparation. Dr. Julius Lewy (now deceased), also on my committee, is remembered for his helpfulness. I wish to thank the librarians at Hebrew Union College, AndoverHarvard Library, and Vanderbilt University Library fpr the use of their facilities and for kindnesses shown in the various stages of the preparation of this book. Mrs. Martha Sisson was kind enough to type the manuscript. Dr. William Green of Pepperdine College and Miss Annie May Alston, librarian of Harding College Graduate School of Religion, graciously read the manuscript. Remaining errors of the book are to be laid at my door, however, and not at theirs. Kindest thanks are due to the Clarendon Press for permission to quote the R. H. Charles edition of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O.T.; to the American Biblical Encyclopedia Society for M. M. Kasher, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation; to the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ for the R.S.V. edition of the Apocrypha; to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge for R. M. Grant, Second Century Christianity; and to A. Levene for his The Syrian Fathers on Genesis. The compliment paid me by my friends and former students who responded to the invitation of Dr. George S. Benson, president of Harding College, to join him in furnishing the subsidy needed for the

VIII

PREFACE

publication will not be forgotten. I am sure that they will find the book less enlightening than they had anticipated. Compassion is extended to my wife, Lynell Carpenter Lewis, and to my two sons, John Robert and Jerry Wayne, who denied them­ selves attentions rightly theirs and who endured the trials of living with me during the long labors of preparing two doctoral disser­ tations, the second of which is this study. I only hope that they will not find their privations in vain. Jack P. Lewis. Memphis, Tennessee August 28, 1965

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A. and P. AJSL. ANF. ARN. A.V. BA. B.A. Bar. BDB.

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O.T. in English. American Journal of Semitic Languages. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Aboth R. Nathan. Authorized Version. Babylonian Amora. Biblical Archaeologist. Baruch. F. Brown, S. R. Driver, C A . Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the O.T. Biblical Antiquities. Bib. Ant. Catholic Biblical Quarterly. CBQ. Const. Apost. Apostolic Constitutions. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. CSCO. Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum. CSEL. M. M. Kasher, Ency. of Biblical Interpretation. EBI. E.V. English Version. F.ofCh. The Fathers of the Church. Die grieschischen christlichen Schrtftsteller der ersten dreiJahrhunderte. GCS. Gesenius-Kautzsch's Hebrew Grammar, A. E. Cowley, tr. GKC. Jerusalem Talmud. L Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis. JBL. JBR. Journal of Bible and Religion. Jewish Encyclopedia. J.E. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. JNES. Journal of Society of Oriental Research. JSOR. The Book ofJubilees. Jub. Koehler, L., and Baumgartner, W . , Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti K-B. Libros. K.J.V. K i n g James Version. Library of Christian Classics. LCC. LXX The Septuagint. M. Mishna. Masoretic Text. MT. Mace. Maccabees. New Testament. N.T, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian NPNF. Church. Sibylline Oracles. Or. Sib. Old Testament. o.r. Philo: Abr. Agr. Conf. Cong. Det. Ebr.

De Abrahamo. De Agricultura. De Confusione Linguarum. De Congressu Eruditionis quaerendae gratia. Quod Deterius Potiori insidiari solet. De Ebrietate.

X

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Fug. Gig. Heres Immut. LA. Mig. Mos. Mut. Plant. Post. Praem. QG. Sob. Som. Virt.

De Fuga et Invsntione (De Profugis). De Gigantibus. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres. Quod Deus immutabilis sit. Legum Allegoria. De Migratione Abrahami. De Vita Mosis. De Mutatione Nominum. De Plantatione. De Posteritate Caini. De Praemiis et Poenis. Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin. De Sobrietate. De Somniis. De Virtutibus.

P.A. PG. PL. PRE. R. R.B. R.S.V. SC. T. T.B. Tos. T. Ps.-Jon. TU. V.T. Z.

Palestinian Amora. Patrologia Graeca. Patrologia Latina. Pirke de R. Elie^er. Midrash Rabbah. Revue Biblique. Revised Standard Version. Sources Cbretiennes. Tanna. Talmud Babli. Tosephta. Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan. Texte und Untersuchungen. Vetus Testamentum. Zeitschrift.

INTRODUCTION This study limits itself in scope to a consideration of the biblical and post-biblical Jewish and Christian materials dealing with the flood. The writer feels justified in setting these limits, for ^mple literature is extant on the flood legends of the world which are at least sixty-eight in number. ) Of these, only the accounts from the Mesopotamian regions show striking similarities to biblical material. Heidel ) and Parrot ) have recently dealt at length, though from Widely different viewpoints, with these stories and with other archaeological finds alleged to confirm the Hebrew story. Likewise the efforts to make the most literal interpretation acceptable to the modern mind finds a representative in Rehwinkel, ) though Rehwinkel has so allowed his imagination to play that he has damaged his case by considerable overstatement. All of these questions fall outside the limits here proposed: ^How did Hebrews and Christians of the early period deal with this enchanting episode of the early chapters of Genesis? 1

2

3

4

The enormous debt this investigation owes to its predecessors is obvious. Special use has been made of the collections of M. M. Kasher, Torah Sbelema, and its English translation, Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation, and L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews. This study differs from those both in inclusion and in exclusion. Kasher limits himself to rabbinic materials. It is regrettable that his English translation does not indicate parallel passages to the ones he trans­ lates, for there is a great deal more repetition in rabbinic literature than one would surmise from the Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpre­ tation. Ginzberg has considered some Christian materials, but chiefly from the viewpoint that they are illustrative of or parallel to rabbinic legends. Other ideas he neglects altogether. This is especially true in the allegorical and typological areas characteristic of certain periods of Christian exegesis. This study also differs from those of Kasher and

*) H. Peake, The Flood (London: Kegan Paul, Trench,Trubner and Co., 1 9 3 0 ) , 1 2 4 pp.; J . G. Frazer, Folklore in the O.T. (London: Macmillan, 1919), 1 , 1 0 4 - 3 6 1 . ) A . Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1954), 269 p p . ) A . Parrot, The Flood and Noah's Ark (London: SCM. Press, 1955), 76 pp. ) A . M. Rehwinkel, The Flood (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1 9 5 1 ) , 3 7 2 pp. 2

3

4

2

INTRODUCTION

Ginzberg in that, while their collections are in the nature of antholo­ gies, this investigation considers motives lying back of interpretations. Though there are a limited number of difficulties inherent in the text of the flood narrative, it is really the Sit^im Leben of the postbiblical writers that has determined their treatment of the flood story. Little interest is shown in giving "scientific exegesis." Even if the biblical difficulties are noticed, it is all too often to furnish support for a position already accepted on another basis. Since the presupposi­ tions of the writers are different, it is obvious that their solutions will be different. This thesis will become all the more obvious as the investigation proceeds.

CHAPTER ONE

NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN THE BIBLE The story of Noah is found in chapters 5:28-10:32 of Genesis. Noah was born in the 182nd year of his father's life (Gen. 5:28). Lamech also had other sons and daughters, though their names are not given. The basis for the choice of the name "Noah" is explained as: "out of the ground which the Lord cursed, this one shall bring us relief (ffi^^T) from our work and from the toil of our hands" (Gen. 5:29). The etymology seems to be a play on the root mJ, "to rest," and m, "Noah," although the text actually used the root Dni which means "to comfort" or "to relieve." ,

,

1

Noah was the tenth generation from the creation. ) After his five hundredth year he became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Gen. 5:32). The circumstance which introduces the flood episode is the marriage of the sons of God (D^nVKiV^a) ) and the daughters of men (rmi OTKn). ) These unions produced the mighty men (D'HUn) of old. It is also stated that the D^DIH were on the earth at that time (Gen. 6:4). ) The Lord declared that His spirit would not always strive ( p T ) with man. ) His days would be limited to 120 years (Gen. 6:3). 2

3

4

5

*) Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah, I Chron. 1 : 1 - 4 ; Lk. 3:36-38. ) Other books of the O.T. refer to angels as bene-ha-elohim o r O^K^IS, J o b 1 : 6 ; 2 : 1 ; 3 8 : 7 ; Ps. 2 9 ; 1 ; 8 9 : 7 (6); Dan. 3:25-28. N.T. references to a fall of angels are found in II Pet. 2 : 4 ; Jude 6. See the studies on this topic: Charles Robert, "Les Fils de Dieu et les Filles de L'Homme," R.B., I V (1895), 340-373; Gustav E. Closen, Die Siinde der "Sobne Gottes" Gen. 6:1-4 (Rome: Papstliches Bibelinstitut, 1937), 2 5 8 pp. ) Though DTKfl 11131 is an hapax legomenon, on an analogy with D T K ? ! ^ ^ there can be little doubt that human women are meant. ) C. A . Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1948), p. 6 1 , argues that some such phrase as "they conceived and bare the Nephilim" has fallen out of the text. This is an unnecessary assumption; see W . H . Green, The Unity of Genesis (N.Y.: Scribner's, 1895), p. 58. The notion that Q^DJ are giants is probably borrowed from the one other occurrence of the r o o t in Scripture, Num. 1 3 : 3 3 , where their size frightens the Israelites into comparing themselves with grasshoppers. The efforts to arrive at an etymology for the w o r d usually work from the root Vfcl, "to fall," but these are less than convincing; see BDB. p. 6 5 8 . ) The dictionaries either leave yadon unexplained, K-B., p. 2 0 6 ; emend it to 2

8

4

y

5

NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN THE BIBLE

4

The imagination of man's heart is described as only evil continually (Gen. 6:5). The Lord was grieved to His heart that He had made man (Gen. 6:6), and decided to blot out man, beast, creeping things, and fowls of the air (Gen. 6:7). The terms "corrupt (nron)" and "filled with violence (0»n f *ixn *6&n)" describe the condition of the eaxth. Noah, on the other hand, is described as "righteous, blameless in his generation" (Gen. 6:9). He walked with God. God announced to Noah His intention to destroy all life and commanded him to build an ark of gopher wood (TOT **), ) with rooms (tftp), ) covered inside and out with pitch (Gen. 6:13-14). The length was to be 300 cubits; the breadth, 50 cubits; the height, 30 cubits. ) There was to be a "window (ins; R.S.V., 'roof)" ) finished to a cubit above; a door in the side; and a lower, second, and third deck (Gen. 6:15-16). The decree of destruction included all flesh that had breath (Gen. 6:17), but a covenant was made with those in the ark: Noah, his sons, and the wives of the four. Noah was commanded to take two of every sort of flesh into the ark—male and female (Mptt IDT)— of birds, animals, and creeping things—that they might be kept alive (Gen. 6:18-20). He was to take every sort of food that is eaten (Gen. 1

1

2

3

4

TIT; or trace ittopV, BDB. pp. 1 8 9 , 1 9 2 ; see E. A . Speiser, "Ydwn Gen. 6 : 3 , " JBL. 75 (June, 1956), 126-129, for an effort to trace p T to Akkadian dinanu; see also A . Guillaume, " A Note on the Meaning of Gen. 6 : 3 , " AfSL. 56 (Oct., 1939), 4 1 5 - 4 1 6 ; and G. R. Berry, "The Interpretation of Gen. 6: 3 " AJSL. 1 6 (1899-1900), 47-49. ) is otherwise unknown as a Semitic word. Some would emend it to *1DD "pitch wood"; see BDB. p. 1 7 2 , o r merely say: "the wood of which the ark was made," K-B. p. 1 9 1 . For a conjecture that there may be a relationship with the reed material known in Akkadian as gipar see C. C. R. Murphy, "What is Gopher W o o d ? " Astatic Revien> N.S. 4 2 (Jan., 1946), 79-81. Such boats are known to the Arabs by the term guff ah which in turn shows a sound resemblance t o "1DH." The Koran, Sura 5 4 : 1 3 , describes the ark as made o f planks and nails. ) The dictionaries assume that D'flj? is derived from ken "nest." This as­ sumption would seem to lie back of the L X X reading. For an opinion that O^j? should be read "reeds"—that is the strips of papyrus between the boards—see Cassuto (EBI II, 1 1 ) ; and E. Ullendorff, "The Construction of Noah's A r k , " V.T. I V (Jan., 1954), 95-96. ) It has been estimated that this would give a ship with a displacement o f approximately 43,300 tons; see A . Heidel, The Gilgamesb Epic (Chicago: U. Press, 1954), p. 236. ) i n s is an hapax legomenon. "Window" of K . J . V . does not indicate that the original here is any different from that of Gen. 8 : 6 where |V?n occurs. The reading follows the Vulgate's fenestram. BDB. p. 844, and K-B. p. 796, suggest from an analogy with roots from Arabic, Assyrian, and the Tel Amarna tablets that the vpbar is a roof. Cf. Shadal and Cassuto (EBI. II, 12). 9

9

9

9

9

x

9

9

9

9

9

2

9

9

8

4

9

9

9

5

NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN THE BIBLE

6:21). It is tersely stated that Noah did what God commanded (Gen. 6:22; 7:5). Chapter seven proceeds to give an additional order that seven (nsntf TOW) ) clean animals—male and female (WW) «m)—=were to be taken into the ark in addition to the pairs of those not clean. ) There were also to be seven birds (Gen. 7: 2-3). In seven days the rain would come and continue forty days and nights (Gen. 7:4). When Noah was six hundred years old the flood came, and the men and their wives went into the ark. The account then states that clean and unclean animals went into the ark two and two (Gen. 7:8-9) and the same is repeated in w . 13-16. The Lord shut Noah in the ark. Seven days later the rain came. The seventeenth day of the second month marks the beginning of the flood. The sources of water were the fountains of the great deep and the windows of heaven (Gen. 7:11). Rain fell for forty days and nights (Gen. 7:12). The ark floated above the waters which covered the mountains fifteen cubits deep (Gen. 7:20). Everything in whose nostrils was the breath of life died: man, animals, creeping things, and birds of the air. The water prevailed on the earth 150 days. Then God made a wind blow on the earth and the water abated. The sources of water were restrained and the waters receded continuously. On the 17th day of the 7th month the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat. ) On the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains were x

2

3

*) The repetition expresses distribution; see GKC, § 1 3 4 q. ) The effort to solve problems by identification of sources, J and P, within the flood material was unknown in the period covered by this investigation. It is assumed without discussion by all writers that the story is a unit. In as far as the phenomena that are alleged to demand sources are noticed, it is considered that the numbers of ch. 7 supplement those of ch. 6 ; the divine name alternates to convey different aspects of the divine character; and the figures for the length of the flood supplement each other. Alleged differences in style were completely unnoticed. ) Ararat is the name of a country in II K. 1 9 : 3 7 ; Is. 3 7 : 3 8 ; and Jer. 5 1 : 2 7 . L X X transliterates the name except in Is. 3 7 : 3 8 where it renders it "Armenia." Modern students tend to identify Ararat with Urartu of the Assyrian inscriptions o r with modern Armenia; see A . Parrot, The Flood and Noah's Ark (London: SCM. Press, 1955), p. 6 1 . Students tend to identify the mountain itself with Massis, N. E. of Lake Van, which rises about 17,000 ft.; see A . Heidel, The Gilgamesb Epic (Chicago: U. Press, 1954), pp. 250-251. The traditional view among the Moslems would identify the mountain with a spot S. W . of Lake Van at Gebel Gudi; see J . Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (N.Y.: Scribner's, 1910), p. 1 6 6 . The Koran, Sura 1 1 : 4 6 , calls it Mt. Judi. Mt. Nisir of the cuneiform flood stories may be still further south at a spot between the lower Zab and the Adhem; see J . Skinner, op. cit., p. 1 6 6 , and A . Parrot, op. cit., p. 62. 2

s

6

NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN THE BIBLE

seen (Gen. 8:5). A t the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark and sent forth a raven ( m a n ) ) which went to and fro (y\W\ K i r K2m) ) until the waters dried. He then sent forth a dove which returned since she found no place to land. Water was still on the earth (Gen. 8:8-9). Seven days later he sent her forth again. This time she returned with an olive leaf (Gen. 8:10-11). Still seven days later she was again sent forth and did not return. On the first day of the first month of his 601st year, Noah removed the covering from the ark. The ground was dry. On the 27th day of the second month God commanded that Noah go forth and that he bring the animals, the birds, and the creeping things out that they might breed, be fruitful, and multiply in the earth (Gen. 8:13-17). Noah then built an altar and took of every clean animal and bird and offered a burnt offering. God smelled the odor, was pleased, and said in His heart that He would never again curse the ground because the imagination of man's heart was evil, nor would He destroy every living creature again as He had done. Seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night would not cease while the world remains (Gen. 8:20-22). x

2

God blessed Noah and his sons and commanded that they be fruit­ ful, multiply, and fill the earth. ) It was promised that all birds, animals, and creeping things would be afraid of them. As previously had been given them green plants, now every moving thing would be their food with the exception that the blood was not to be eaten. ) Man's life blood would be required from the beasts and from man. Man should shed the blood of him who sheds man's blood, for God made man in His image. 8

4

*) Hebrew may use an article to denote a person or thing which is as yet un­ known as being present to the mind of the writer under given circumstances; see GKC. § 1 2 6 q, r, t. ) The second infinitive absolute coordinated with the first expresses .either accompanying or antithetical action to the first; see GKC, § 1 1 3 s. ) The text presents the problem of whether the second person imperatives, !X7ttl "DTI V1B and what follows them, are a part of the spoken blessing of God or a statement separate from it with the exact words of the blessing, if any, left unquoted. The same verbs, but in the 3rd per. pi. ind., are used in connection with animals in Gen. 8 : 1 7 without a context of blessing; for though blessed at creation, there is no specific blessing on animals after the flood; see J . Skinner, op. eit. p. 1 6 9 . S. R. Driver, Genesis (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen, 1909), p. 9 5 , treated the first seven verses of chapter nine as the wording of the blessing. ) The prohibition is repeated in the Law as applicable to Israelite and sojourner Lev. 1 7 : 1 0 - 1 4 ; cf. Lev. 3 : 1 7 ; 7 : 2 6 - 2 7 ; Deut. 1 2 : 1 6 , 23-25; Ez. 3 3 : 2 5 . y

2

8

y

4

NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN THE BIBLE

7

God made a covenant with Noah, his sons, descendants, and the living creatures that came from the ark: birds, cattle, and beasts of the earth. Never again would there be a flood to cut off all flesh to destroy the earth (Gen. 9:8-11). vpod set a bow in the cloud to be a sign of the covenant. ) It was promised that when clouds came and God saw the bow, He would remember the covenant. It was to be an ever­ lasting covenant between God and every living creature on the earth (Gen. 9:12-27). 1

2

Noah now became a farmer and planted a vineyard. ) He became drunken on the wine and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and told his two brothers who took a garment, walked backward so as to avoid seeing their father, and covered him with it. Noah awoke and cursed Canaan, Ham's son, that he should be a slave of slaves to his brothers, while they were to be blessed and enlarged (Gen. 9:20-27). Noah lived 350 years after the flood and died at the age of 950 years. Chapter ten proceeds to enumerate the children born to Noah's sons after the flood. Only the line of Canaan, the son of Ham, need concern us here. His children were Sidon, Heth, the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgasites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites. The territory of the Canaanites extended from Sidon to Gaza in the direction of Gerar and to Lasha in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim (Gen. 10:15-19). We note that these people are not said to inhabit Africa. One further factor from the Bible which is decisive in post-biblical interpretation is the use made of the flood in biblical materials outside of Genesis. Biblical genealogies include the name of Noah in the tenth generation, while the names of his sons follow in immediate sequence (I Chron. 1 : 4 ; Lk. 3:36). In later literature Noah is fre­ quently alluded to as an outstanding example of righteousness. Noah already plays this role as early as the time of Ezekiel, for Ezekiel declares that were Noah, Daniel, and Job in a land when God sends a famine, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness (Ez. 14:14). If it is pestilence that comes, they can deliver neither son

*) For the rainbow as a natural phenomenon following a rain or for comparisons between the adornments of the throne of G o d and the colors of the rainbow, see Es. 1 : 2 8 ; Rev. 4 : 3 ; 1 0 : 1 ; Sir. 4 3 : 1 1 - 1 2 ; 5 0 : 7 . ) Vm is likely a hiphUl of V?n. The root may either mean "to be profaned" o r " t o begin/' K-B., p. 303. *tm n&TXnttT*KItt coordinates a comple­ mentary verbal idea with a substantive £see GKC., § 120 b. 2

8

NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN THE BIBLE

nor daughter, but only their own lives (Ez. 14:20). Since Noah did deliver his sons in the days of the flood, this passage not only presents Noah as the righteous man, but it also makes it necessary to ask whether or not his sons were also righteous men. The phrase "waters of Noah" is used in the book of Isaiah to introduce the idea of an unchangeable covenant. As God had prom­ ised Noah that the waters of the flood would no more cover the earth, so in the exile He swears that in days to come He will no more be angry with His people. The promise is as unchangeable as the hills (Is. 54:9-10). In a context which praises the might of the Lord (Ps. 29:10), the Lord is said to sit enthroned above the flood (VD&V). Since this is the one single occurrence in the MT. of the term ^"Dft outside the flood section of Genesis, it is possible that Noah's flood is in the writer's view, despite the fact that the idea of God's throne over the waters is also found in Ps. 104:3. The wickedness of the flood generation and its destruction may be alluded to in Job 2 2 : 1 5 ff. where wicked men were snatched away before their time as their foundation was washed away. Despite God's filling their homes with good things, they said to God, "Depart from us," and "What can the Almighty do to us?" In addition to the above mentioned explicit references to Noah and the flood, certain poetic and apocalyptic sections of the Bible may borrow from the flood motif and combine it with pictures of an earthquake to give a picture of judgment. Isaiah announces that the Lord will lay waste the earth and make it desolate. The earth is staggering from transgression. Everlasting covenants have been broken (Is. 2 4 : 1 , 4-5; cf. Gen. 9:16). The windows of heaven are opened and the foundations of the earth tremble (Is. 2 4 : 1 8 ; cf. Gen. 7 : 1 1 ; 8:2). A few are preserved by entering their chambers until the wrath is past (Is. 26:20-21). Other contributing elements to the concept would likely be the phrase "overflowing wrath (^Sj? *|1W)" of Is. 54:8 (Isaiah's opponents thought it would affect the enemies of the nation, but the prophet makes clear that Israel is to suffer in her approaching defeat that led to exile |ls. 2 8 : 1 4 - 1 8 ; cf. 8:8]); *135? i ] t w (xaTaxXu<j[x6c; "overflowing flood"), Nah. 1:8, describes the punishment of Nineveh; and the "flood (*]&ff, cf. xaTaxXuafi6v o\)% uTrsaTpe^ev), repeated by the Vulgate, inferred that the raven never returned to the ark. Chrysostom argues that the "until" of Matt. 1:25 does not imply later sex relations any more than "until" in Genesis implies that the raven later returned: In Matt. Horn. v . 3 (PG. 57. 5 8 ) ; cf. Augustine, In Ps. 102. 1 6 (PL. 37. 1330); In Ioannis Evang. Tr. 6. 3 (PL. 35. 1426); see also M. V . David, "L* Epi­ sode des oiseaux dans les recits du deluge," V.T., 7 (Ap., 1957), 189-190. It is a common assumption on the part of many that the raven found ample food from the dead bodies^ PRE. 2 3 ; Augustine, C. Faustum 1 2 . 2 0 (CSEL. 25. 3 4 8 ) ; Sulpicius Severus, Chron. i, 3 (CSEL. 1. 5). 2

3

4

) The dove in Christian literature is more frequently allegorized to represent the Holy Spirit; see infra, p. 1 7 4 . In a midrash, the dove represents Israel who finds no rest in exile and returns to Palestine, Gen. R. 33. 6 ; cf. Lam. R. 1. 3. § 29. ) The one year stay in the ark is in agreement with the chronology of the L X X . This book differs from L X X on the date of the drying of the earth and in having the end of the flood come in the 607th yr. of Noah's life. ) This Haggadah was known to Philo (QG. ii. 4 9 ) ; some rabbis: Gen. R. 3 1 . 1 2 ; / . Taan. 1. 6 (EBI. II, 1 5 . § 4 9 ) ; T. B. Sanh. lOSb; PRE. 2 3 ; Rashi (EBI. 6

6

40

NOAH IN THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

requested the Lord to show him what sacrifices to offer. Instructed by the Word of the Lord, Noah offered clean animals (iii. II). ) God, having smelled the offering, ) made a covenant that there should be no more flood. The bow in the cloud, intended to stir men to fear and repentance, should be a sign that God's anger and the punish­ ment He intended had passed by. ) Noah and his sons were blessed and commanded to be fruitful and multiply. ) The earth was command­ ed to produce herbs (iii. 12). Noah lived 100 years on the mountain. He and his sons built a city named Semanan after the eight people in the ark. Noah took a root of vine, planted it, made wine, and became drunken. ) In this state he came in unto his wife unawares. ) Ham saw him senseless, laughed, and told his brothers. Shem and Japheth took a coverlet,"walked backwards, and covered the pair. Noah's wife informed her husband of Ham's fault on the next day. Noah cursed Ham and made him a servant to his brothers. Shem and Japheth were blessed (iii. 13). 1

2

3

4

5

6

II, 4 3 ) ; and to a large group of church fathers: Origen, Selecta in Gen. 53 (PG. 12. 105); Julius Africanus, Chron. 4 (PG. 1 0 . 68); Hippolytus, Arabic Frag, to Pent. II, Gen. 7:6 (GCS. 1. 2. 88); John of Damascus, De fide orth. 4. 2 4 (PG. 94. 1207 C); Hilary, Tract, myst. i. 13 (SC. 1 9 . 1 0 1 ) ; see also the Arabic ms. cited by J . G. Frazer, op. cit. 1 , 1 4 6 and L. Ginsberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern, pp. 81-82. *) Sulpicius Severus, Chron. i. 4 (CSEL. 1. 5), has Noah to offer birds. ) Certain Christian writers were disturbed by the anthropomorphism involved in God's smelling the savor of the sacrifice as they were also by His repentance. Simon attempts to prove by this and other anthropomorphisms that the God spoken of is not the supreme G o d ; see Ps.-Clem., Horn. iii. 39 (GCS. 42. 7 1 ) . This must have been a common argument made by opponents for Ambrose, De spiritu Sancto ii. 68 (PL. 1 6 . 788), replies that we are not to assume that God is fashioned after bodily form, but that there are spiritual nostrils. Cf. Novatian, De Trinitate 6 (PL. 3 . 9 2 2 ) ; Gregory of Nyssa, C. Eunomian, Bk. II (NPNF. ser. ii. 5. 274). Ps.-Melito, The Key, Frag. 9 (ANF. 8. 760), allegorizes the phrase to imply God's delight in the prayers and works of the saints. ) For additional references to the rainbow, see Victorinus, Comm. Ap. 4. 3 (CSEL. 4 9 . 4 8 ) ; Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns 1. 2 (NPNF. ser. ii. 1 3 . 167), sings of the bow and the cross as God's two great signs. Ps.-Tertullian, Ap. I, Sodoma 1 (PL. 2 . 1 1 0 1 B), poetically comments on the colors of the bow. ) Passing allusions to the fact of blessing are to be found in Tobit 4 : 1 2 ; Jub. 1 9 : 2 7 ; and Ps.-Clem., Recog. i. 30 (PG. 1. 1224). ) To Lactantius, Div. inst. ii. 1 3 (CSEL. 1 9 . 1 6 1 ) , the entire affair made Noah the inventor of wine rather than Bacchus. The claim for Bacchus was only another example of how the Greeks had falsified in their claims to antiquity. Other refer­ ences to Noah's planting are found in Jub. 7 : 1 - 9 ; Josephus, Ant. i. 6. 3 ; and Gen. Apoc. XII. 1 3 . ) That Noah's drunkenness was an affair with his wife was taught by some rabbis, Gen. R. 36. 4 ; cf. "self indulgence culminated in lust," Jerome, Ep. 2 2 . 8 (CSEL. 54. 155). y

2

3

4

5

6

NOAH IN THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

41

Noah lived on 350 more years after he came out of the ark; mean­ time he had married again and begotten seven other children. ) Prior to his death, he charged Shem to bring the body of Adam out of the ark and to bury it in the middle of the earth in the presence of Melchizedek. The writer declares that this spot is the place where God "will work salvation for the whole world" (iii. 13). The ark had been closed with a padlock (iii. 18) since the time of the flood with no one permitted to touch it except Noah. He had kept a lamp lighted morning and evening before the body of Adam (iii. 14). Noah divided the earth among his descendants and then died on Wednesday, the 2nd of Gembot, on the mountain where the ark was. He had attained an age of 950 years (iii. 15). 1

This survey of material from the Book of Adam and Eve demon­ strates that this writer treats the flood out of a background where the Christological interpretation of the O.T. has thoroughly penetrated. A t the same time, his writing reflects considerable influence of haggadic materials. The typological exegesis, so characteristic of other Christian treatment of the O.T., only reveals itself in the interpre­ tation of the dove. We have seen in this section something of the great variety of pre­ sentations of the flood to be found in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The exegesis exhibits homiletical exhortation, Scripture paraphrase, midrashic exegesis, apocalyptic symbolism, and allegory. Whether the material be Jewish or Christian, the narrative is condensed or embellished, as the case may be, in keeping with the requirements of the atmosphere that produced the exegete. x

) The M T . does not include the phrase with Noah "he begat sons and daughters" as it does for other patriarchs. That Noah married again o r had other children is unique to this source. Cf. the stress in other Christian writings that from the three sons the world was repopulated, Augustine, In Ps. 68. 1 (PL. 36. 8 4 0 ) ; Civ. Dei 1 5 . 26 (CSEL. 40. 2. 1 1 8 ) .

CHAPTER THREE

THE FLOOD IN HELLENISTIC-JEWISH WRITERS Each of the three figures to be considered in this chapter—Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus—represents a different degree of pene­ tration of the Greek spirit into Judaism. The consequences are that each offers a different solution to flood problems. A . PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

In Philo we encounter a loyal Jew into whom the Greek spirit has penetrated to the maximum. Philo is trained in philosophy and uses the language of mystery, but he chooses to present the bulk of his ideas in connection with Scripture passages. Back of it all is a spirit of exhortation which would instruct one on how to live the religious life. ) Philo relates the flood "both as a marvel and as~.a~means of edifi­ cation." ) Three levels are observable in his material: the historical event of the past, the lessons to be drawn from it, and the allegories which may be attached to it. ) The fact that a particular passage was interpreted in one way did not at all preclude the possibility of its also having a second meaning. ) Repeatedly when citing a passage he says, "The literal meaning is clear," and makes no further comment. ) For some passages, however, he suggests that the entire passage is to be taken allegorically; ) while for still others no allegory is offered. ) It is extremely difficult to segregate the various levels, but we shall attempt to consider the first two together and save the allegorical for a separate section. It is obvious, however, that the literal often slips off into allegory. There are also numerous cases where the passage 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

x

) Samuel Sandmel, "Philo's Environment and Philo's Exegesis," JBR. X X I I (Oct., 1954), 2 5 1 . ) Mos. ii. 59. ) Cf. R. Marcus, Philo, " Q G . , Intro." (Loeb Series), p. ix. ) H. A . Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1948), I, 1 2 6 - 1 2 7 . Philo compares the t w o meanings to body and soul, both of which need attention, Mig. 89-94. ) E.g., QG. ii. 2 5 , e t c ) E.g.,QG. ii. 36, 3 7 ; Det. 1 6 7 . Philo suggests that the story of the creation of woman (Gen. 2 : 2 1 ) is a myth, LA. ii. 1 9 . ) QG. ii. 67. 9

2

8

4

6

6

7

43

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

is merely quoted with no literal explanation attempted. To make anything like a complete flood story, these episodes must be included in the literal. J t is well to keep in mind that Philo comments upon the Greek rather than upon the Hebrew text. However, even when we compare his biblical quotations with the L X X , they show some interesting variants. It is not unusual for him to offer two or more alternative explanations to the same passage. For our purpose, the several treatises which take their titles from the flood material*) prove rather disappointing. In most cases in these books Philo has merely used texts as his point of departure. His conception of the flood even must be drawn from the passages scattered here and there where he uses it as air illustration of some other point. The most complete treatments are to be found in De Abrahamo, De Vita Mosis, QuodDeusimmutabilissit\ and finally in even greater detail in Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin. A glance at the index to scriptural passages which is included as an appendix to this study will reveal that Philo has quoted or referred to a considerable majority of the verses in the flood material. Even a casual reading of all the pertinent discussion will demonstrate that Philo has wrestled with the major problems about the flood that have bothered men through the centuries. Since there are repetitions in Philo's flood material and since he has not presented his thoughts verse by verse, we have chosen to follow a general logical order, rather than the pedantic method of attempting to go verse by verse. Though no such system is observable in Philo, the modern mind finds it practically impossible to grasp his thought without using a system. We trust that we shall not do com­ plete violence to him in supplying the lack. 1. The Literal Noah. Philo understood the DVfrNfl^ia who took wives of whom they chose, to be angels of God. ) Insisting that we are not to consider this story a myth, he asserts that souls, demons, and angels are but different names for the same object. Moses called them angels, but the philos­ ophers call them demons. We are not to doubt that, though imper­ ceptible to the senses, they do hover in the air, and that it is filled with them. ) While some angels remained in the service of God, others 2

8

x

) Gig., Agr. Plant., Ebr. and Sob. ) Gig. 6 ; Codex Alex, reads

1

Equally polemical is Justin's argument against the food laws. Noah, a just man, was permitted to eat of every kind of flesh except that which had the blood that dies of itself. ) He emphasized the phrase "as the green herb" (Gen. 9:3). Trypho in the Dialogue used "as the green herb" as a proof text that as some herbs are not eaten, so some animals are not eaten. It is widely thought that Trypho is a "straw man." That the rabbis ever applied the laws of clean and unclean to 2

1

) Cf. Iten.,Adv. haer. iv. 1 6 . 2 ; Tertullian, Adv. Judaeos 2 (CSEL. 70. 2 5 7 2 5 8 ) ; Cyprian, Testimonies 1. 8 (CSEL. 3. 1. 45). ) Influenced by the Apostolic Letter, Acts 1 5 , several of the church fathers consider the prohibition against eating blood binding; see John of Damascus, De Fide orth. iv. 27 (PG. 9 4 . 1 2 2 1 A ) ; Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 1. 4 (CSEL. 1. 5 ) ; Aphraates dates the prohibition even back to A d a m ; see Horn. 1 5 . 4 (TU. 3. 3. 2 6 1 ) . Tertullian, De jejunio 4 (CSEL. 20. 278) considers that one would be eating the soul if he ate blood. A n y bishop o r deacon or other sacerdotal person who ate blood should be deprived of his position, while one of the laity would be suspended from the church; see Const. Apost. viii. 47. 63 (Funk, p. 582). Ps.-Clem., Recog. i. 30 (PG. 1. 1224), erroneously states that the prohibition was given in the twelfth generation after man had begun to multiply. In Augustine's day the church was divided over whether Acts 1 5 alluded to the prohibition >of eating blood given to Noah, or whether it prohibited murder. Augustine, himself, feels that the apostles were merely legislating for the period when both Jewish and Gentile elements were in the church. Now that it is pre­ dominantly Gentile, no one feels bound to abstain from birds or hares whose necks have been broken without shedding blood. One w h o is afraid to eat is laughed at by the rest. Augustine's proof text is, "Not that which enters the mouth defiles, but that which comes out"; see C. Faustum 32. 1 3 (CSEL. 25. 772-773). A highly allegorical treatment of Gen. 9:3 is to be found in Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio 1 5 (PG. 44. 1 7 7 A ) . 2

EARLY CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FLOOD

111

1

plants cannot be demonstrated from Jewish sources. ) In the argu­ ment, Justin returned that the distinction between herbs is not that one is clean and another is unclean, but rather that some are bitter or poisonous or prickly. God then commanded the Jew to abstain from unclean animals because after having eaten manna in the wilderness, they showed their lack of faith by making the golden calf (Dial. 20). ) Trypho, when crowded into a corner, admitted that the patriarchs, including Noah, will be saved without keeping the demands of the Law: Sabbath, circumcision, observing months, and the various lustrations (Dial. 46). Justin further argued that the Jew had deceived himself in thinking that through being a descendant of Abraham he should have blessings* for Ezekiel had said, "If Noah, Jacob (sic.)> and Daniel would beg either sons or daughters, the request would not be granted them" (Dial. 44; cf. 140. 3). The Christians are not to be despised, but really are the nation promised to Abraham, of whom Noah was the father, as well as of all men (Dial. 119. 4). In reply to Trypho's question whether keepers of the Law would be saved if they live in the same manner as Jacob, Enoch, and Noah, Justin replied that some things in the Law are naturally good. These, of course, those under the Law must keep; and if they do, they will be saved by Christ in the resurrection along with the righteous men before them: Noah, Enoch, and Jacob (Dial. 45). In the narrow space of two sections Justin uses Noah, Jacob, and Daniel and also Noah, Enoch, and Jacob as examples of three particularly righteous men who are saved by their faith—saved by righteousness apart from the law. 2

u

s

t

m

*) A . H. Goldfahn, " J Martyr und die Agada," Monatschrift fur Geschicbte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 22 (1873), 57-58. ) A n appeal to Gen. 9 becomes a standard reply in anti-Jewish polemic to be found in Clement of A . , Paed. ii. 1. 1 6 (GCS. 1 2 . 1 6 5 ) ; Const. Apost. vii. 2 0 (Funk, p. 4 0 4 ) ; Jerome, Adv.Jovin. i. 5 (PL. 2 3 . 226). Augustine flatly states that it is not the uncleanness of meat that he fears, but the uncleanness o f lusting, Conf. 1 0 . 3 1 . 46 (CSEL. 3 3 . 2 6 1 ) ; also cited in Possidius, Life of Augustine 22 (F. of Ch. 1 5 . 99). It is interesting that the Midrash to Psalms 1 4 6 . 7 admits that all animals are clean for the bene-Noah. The limitation was later placed to see who would accept God's will and w h o would not; cited in G o l d f a h n , ' ^ . cit., p. 58. The statement of Genesis further entered into the polemics of Christians in questions regarding asceticism. Clement of Alexandria reduces the argument of his opponent to absurdity by pointing out that if one should refrain from sexual relations in spite of the command to multiply, then he should abstain from food altogether in spite of all things being given for food, Strom, iii. 37 (GCS. 1 5 . 212). 2

112

EARLY CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FLOOD

The marked christological tendencies observable in the second century exegesis serve both to affirm the unity of the O.T. and N.T. revelation and as a reply to the Jew. Justin insisted that it is really Christ rather than the ineffable God that is to be understood as appearing to the patriarchs. Both his philosophical doctrine of God and his Christology are reflected in his statement that it was Christ who closed the ark of Noah from without (Dial. 127). This same line of thought is followed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. iv. 36. 4) who has the Son of God bring the deluge and by Melito who in discussing faith lists some episodes in the O.T. in which the Logos played a part. The Logos led Abraham, was bound with Isaac, sold with Joseph, and "he was Noah's pilot." ) J

For Justin, the fact that the whole earth was covered fifteen cubits implies that the story is intended for all who are obedient to God and not merely for the Jew (Dial. 138). Both Justin and Irenaeus found Christ to be the fulfillment of the promise made that God would enlarge Japheth and place him in the tents of Shem, for Christ preached peace to those near and those afar off (Adv. haer. iii. 5. 3). ) Christian treatment of the flood differs most markedly from the other literary groups covered in this study in its use of typology. Typology as it applied to the flood should not be considered in isolation from its application to the rest of the O.T. ) Back of this kind of exegesis is a theory of history as prophecy and fulfillment, ) in which the secret counsel of God, unknown in times past has now 2

3

4

x

) Melito, Frag. 1 3 ; trans, in R. M. Grant, Second Century Christ. (London: SPCK. 1946), p. 77. Further examples of this tendency are to be seen in those writers w h o assert that it was Christ who repented that he made man; see Tertullian Adv. Prax. 1 6 (CSEL. 4 7 . 257); Christ commanded Noah and family to enter the ark, opened the cataracts of heaven, and broke up the great deep to bring on the flood; see Athanasius, Oratio III contra Arianos 45 (PG. 26. 4 1 7 i G 4 2 0 ) . Christ reconciled the animals in the ark; see Ephraem Syrus, Hymns on the Nativity\ Hymn V (NPNF. ser. ii. 1 3 . 238). It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that these writers always make this shift from God to the Son as the active agent in the flood episode; see Chrysostom, In Ep. ad Col. c. ii, horn. v. 4 (PG. 6 2 . 3 3 6 ) ; Ephraem Syrus, Nisibene Hymns i. 1 0 (NPNF., ser. ii. 1 3 . 1 6 8 ) ; Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 1 4 7 (PL. 52. 594 D). ) Cf. Demonst. 2 1 and Justin, Dial. 1 3 9 . That the promise involved the displacing of the Jews in Palestine by the Gentiles is also known to the Syrian Fathers; see A . Levene, op. cit., p. 85. ) Typology is considered by G. W . H. Lampe and K . J . Woollcombe, Essays on Typology (London: SCM. Press, 1957), 80 pp. ) R. L. P. Milburn, Early Christian Interpretations of History (N. Y . : Harper and Bros., 1954), p. 2 3 ; cf. E. E. Ellis, Paul's use of the O.T. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), pp. 126-135. 9

2

3

4

EARLY CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FLOOD

113

been made known in Christ. He who formed the world determined that all things "would center in the Son of God; God predestinating the natural man to be saved by the spiritual man" (Iren., Adv. haer. iii. 22. 3). ) This conviction is quite important in understanding how early Christians justified the christological interpretation of the O.T. Already in the O.T. the idea is set forth that God's great acts of the past enable Israel to understand the present. Such pictures are to be seen in the idea of the return to the wilderness of Hos. 2 : 1 6 (14) or in the combination of creation, exodus, and return from exile of Is. 5 1 : 9 - 1 1 . It was the N.T., however, that was the most influential in legitimizing typology for the second century church. Paul asserted that a veil lay on the minds of the O.T. reader which was removed only if one turned to Christ (II Cor. 3:14). It was only natural that the churchman with his conviction of the unity of God's revelation should find meanings not previously seen. Paul further asserted that Adam was a type of that to come (TUTCCN; TOO (liAXovros; Rom. 5:14). The Red Sea and the wilderness experience contained types (TUTCOI; I Cor. 10:6) "for us." Without specifically using the word, the typological interpretation is used for the passover (I Cor. 5:7) and for the high priest on the day of atonement (Heb. 9). To trace out further these ideas would carry us farther afield than suits our purpose at this time. 1

Beyond the general acceptance of typology, the specific application to the flood is mediated by the assertion in I Pet. 3:21 that baptism is the like figure (<XVTITU7CO1 comes from the sap of the tree which is *1DD. Cassuto insists that it belongs to the pine family; see EBI. II, 1 1 . ) Gen. R. 3 1 . 9 ; T. B. Sotah 12a; Ex. R. 1. 2 1 . ) Gen. A. 3 1 . 1 1 . Ibn Ezra and Radak (EBI. II, 12) identify it with a window. ) /. Pes. 1. 1 (T.S. 6. 181). •) Gen. R. 33. 5. ) Gen. R. 3 1 . 1 1 ; cf. PRE. 2 3 where R. Meir says that a pearl was suspended in the ark for this purpose. *) T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b . ) Jerome comments on the fact that there is a problem of equating colligens, which he evidently obtained from the L X X , with meridanum which he understood the Hebrew to imply. He evidently assumed that IHS comes from 0*Hn.S (noonday). He then notes Symmachus' reading and concludes that the fundamen­ tal idea is fenestra, "window" (Quaest. Heb. in Gen. 6. 1 6 (PL. 2 3 . 998)); cf. M. Rahmer, op. cit., p. 24. Differing entirely are the early Syrian fathers who take the word to refer to things that project from the ark like a porch, and sundries are placed on them Gabriel calls it the wood which is placed in the middle of the ship for crossing from one side to the other; see A . Levene, op. erf., p. 82. ) Gen. R. 3 1 . 1 1 . ) Gen. R. 3 1 . 1 4 ; cf. Augustine, De Catech. 2 2 . 2 9 (PL. 40. 3 3 8 ) ; Lactantius, Div. inst. ii. 1 3 (CSEL. 1 9 . 160); Julius Africanus, Chron. 4 (PG. 1 0 . 68). "How a

3

4

5

7

9

10

u

138

THE RABBINIC NOAH

When completed and loaded, the ark drew eleven cubits of water. This is calculated from the estimate that the water diminished one cubit in four days after the flood. *) The position of R. Abba b. Kahana (PA. 3) over what was eaten in the ark is unclear. First he is reported to have taught that most of the food taken into the ark was pressed figs which all ate, in which explanation he agrees with teaching set forth in R. Nehemiah's (T. 4) name. But immediately he is placed opposite R. Levi (PA. 3), with R. Abba b. Kahana insisting that branches were taken for elephants, rvm^n for the deer, and glass for the ostriches; that is, food suitable for each type was taken. ) R. Levi (PA. 3) contended that there were vine, fig, and olive shoots also taken for future plantings. Both are in­ terpreting the verse "for thee and for them." ) R. Hana b. Bizna's (BA. 3) story of the pomegranate worm which the chameleon ate would imply more than figs to eat. ) The animals gathered themselves to the ark. ) That only perfect, 2

3

4

6

wise was Noah who built the whole of the a r k , " exclaims Ambrose, De offic. i. 121 (PL. 1 6 . 63). ) Gen. R. 33. 7. ) Gen. R. 3 1 . 1 4 ; and Sforno (EBI. II, 16). ) Gen. R. 3 1 . 1 4 . The reading is based on a proposed emendation of the text with the name being reversed, see EBI. II, 1 7 , n. 2. Philo avoids the problem under discussion by having the destruction affect only the face of the earth, QG. ii. 1 5 . Ps.-Clem., Recog. i. 29 (PG. 1. 1224) speaks of the seeds he had shut up with him. ) T. B. Sanh. 108b. Radak and Ibn Ezra assume that carnivorous animals may have eaten fodder (EBI. II, 16). Christian sources tend toward the view of a variety of food. Origen, Horn, in Gen. ii. 1 (GCS. 2 9 . 2 5 ) , supposes that each animal ate that which was natural to it. Carnivorous animals were fed meat which was supplied from the numbers o f suitable animals. The early Syrian fathers are not specific on the point, but do insist that food was so scarce that there was no refuse; see A . Levene, op. cit. p. 82. Hippolytus, Arabic Frag, to Pent. II. Gen. 7 . 6 (GCS. 1. 2. 89), includes in the original command of God victuals of wheat ground, kneaded with water, and dried. The women of Noah's family were diligent and spent a great deal of time in preparing just the right amount. Theodoretus, Quaest. in Gen. vi. 51 (PG. 8 0 . 1 5 3 D), argues that the food was fodder and seeds. Augustine, Civ. Dei 15. 2 7 (CSEL. 40. 2 . 1 2 1 f.), supposes that during this period the carnivorous animals may have eaten vegetables, fruit, figs, and chestnuts, o r that it would not have been impossible for God to keep them alive without food of a proper sort. ) Gen. R. 32. 8. Cf. Philo, Mos. ii. 6 1 ; PRE. 2 3 ; T. B. Zeb. 1 1 6 a ; Sefer Hayashar, Noah (EBI. II, 3 1 ) ; and Ibn Ezra (EBI. II, 16). This idea was known to Ephraem; see L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern, pp. 8 0 - 8 1 ; for the text of Ephraem see R. M. Tonneau, S. Epbr. Syr. in Gen. et Ex. Comm. (CSCO. 72), p. 4 7 . It is further repeated by Augustine: "Noah did not have to catch the animals. He merely let them in as they came by. They 1

2

8

4

9

9

6

139

THE RABBINIC N O A H

young animals were taken in can be deduced from "with thee" which means "perfect like thee"; while "to keep seed alive" eliminates the old, the castrates, and those torn (nsntt) or defective in limbs. ) R. Samuel b. Nahman (PA. 3) in R. Jonathan's (PA. 2) name taught that from "man and wife" and "clean" one could deduce that only those animals that had mated after their kind were taken in. As Noah led them by the ark, the ark rejected those that had been involved in sin. ) Another test proposed was: if the male pursued after the female, they were accepted, but if the female pursued after the male, they were rejected. ) Still again, those who crouched were taken in. ) It is insisted that fourteen is the total of clean birds, for one would be short a mate if only seven were meant. ) But Resh Lakish (PA. 2) assumed that there were only two unclean birds. ) R. Eleazar (PA, 3) said in R. Jose's (c. 150) name that "birds of every wing" excluded from the ark those that were moulting or unfit for sacrifice by the Noahides. ) God ordered that there be more clean than unclean animals because he desired that sacrifices be made of them. ) A divergent view is that God wished to decrease the number of unclean animals and at the same time to increase the number of clean. That a total of 366 species each of catde, of reptiles, and of birds were x

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

came by God's will and not by man's w o r k . " Civ. Dei 1 5 . 27 (CSEL. 40. 2.121); cf. Theodoretus, Quaest. in Gen. 4 4 (PG. 80. 97 B). PRE. 23 has angels collect the animals to preserve them; cf. supra, p. 2 8 . Ramban has the unclean animals come themselves, but Noah has to assemble the clean ones (EBI. II, 2 1 ) . Hippolytus has Noah bring them all together, Arabic Frag, to Pent. 1 (GCS. 1. 2 . 88). *) T. B. Zeb. 1 1 6 a ; Abodah Zarah 6a; 51a. ) T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b ; Zeb. 1 1 6 a . ) Gen. R. 3 1 . 1 3 . This question is not dealt with very clearly in the church fathers we have investigated. Pope Damasus wonders how God could give a charge to Noah concerning unclean animals when He had made everything good; see Jerome, Ep. 3 5 . 2 (CSEL. 54. 266). Jerome remarks that the eating of the unclean was already forbidden, otherwise "unclean" is an unnecessary word, but he does not enlarge on when it was forbidden; Adv.Jovinianum ii. 1 5 (PL. 23. 320 A ) . Julius Africanus has the "firstlings of every living creature" taken in; Chron. 4 (PG. 1 0 . 68). ) Sefer Hayashar, Noah (EBI. II, 3 1 ) . ) Gen. R. 32. 4 ; cf. Ibn Ezra (EBI. II, 2 1 ) . •) T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b . ') Gen. R. 32. 8. «) Gen. R. 34. 9 ; Ex. R. 50. 2 ; cf. Rashi (ESI. II, 4 6 ) ; Jerome, Ep. 1 2 3 . 1 1 (CSEL. 56. 85); Adv. Jovin. 1. 1 6 (PL. 23. 2 4 7 ) ; Theodoretus, Quaest. in Gen. 59 (PG. 80. 1 5 3 ) ; see L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern (Berlin: S. Calvary and Co., 1900), p. 78. 2

3

4

5

140

THE RABBINIC NOAH

taken is arrived at by adding the total number of rooms presumed to be on each floor. *) Unusual inhabitants of the ark included the spirits of those not yet born, according to R. Hoshaya (PA. 1). ) In Midrash Tehillim ) falsehood comes for shelter in the ark, but is refused because he has no mate. He goes away and forms an alliance with misfortune on condition that she get what he earns, and then they are accepted into the ark. Following the flood she forces him to keep his bargain. R. Judah (T. 4) and R. Nehemiah (T. 4) differed over whether the Din, an unusually large animal, went into the ark. Judah thought that only its whelps were taken in, while R. Nehemiah insisted that it was only tied to the ark and plowed furrows in the water. Those who said Palestine was exempt from the flood said that it stayed there. In the Talmud this discussion is between R. Jannai (T. 4) and Rabbah b. bar Hanah (BA. 4). R. Johanan (PA. 2) suggests that only the head of the animal was in the ark. The waters were cooled at the edge of the ark so that he could survive. ) Og and Sihon, because of their enormous size, survived outside the ark. ) The water came only to their ankles. ) Opinions differed over the entrance of Noah into the ark. R. Johanan (PA. 2) had said that he only entered when the water reached his ankles. ) Others emphasized that he only entered when command­ ed to do so, which was the appropriate season to enter. ) Still others stressed the importance of the entrance into the ark in "the self-same day" as a challenge to the people of the time who threatened to demolish the ark if Noah attempted to enter it. ) Or it was to invite the objector to speak out lest they should later say, had we known what he was doing, we would have prevented his entrance into the ark. *) 2

8

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

*) PRE. 23. One edition reads "thirty-two" species of birds. ) Gen. R. 31. 13. ) EBI. 1 1 , 2 6 - 2 7 , § 2 2 . ) Gen. R. 31. 1 3 ; T. B. Zeb. 1 1 3 b . ) T. B. Niddah 6 1 a ; T. B. Zeb. 1 1 3 b . •) Deut. R. 11. 1 0 ; cf. PRE. 23 where Og sat under the eaves of the ark; cf. also T. Ps.-Jon. Gen. 1 4 : 1 3 ; Deut. 2 : 1 1 ; 3 : 1 1 . ) Gen. R. 32. 6 ; cf. Rashi and Abrabanel (EBI. II. 23). This is in marked con­ trast with those authorities where Noah was in the ark for seven days before the flood: cf. PRE. 23; Radak (EBI. II, 2 3 ) ; and Ephraem Syrus, Comm. in Gen. 6 : 1 0 (CSCO. 72. 47-48). ) Eccl. R.3.1; 1 0 . 4 . § 1 ; see also Torab Shelemah 8 : 6 4 . ) Sifre, Debarim 337 (EBI. II, 2 6 , § 20). ) Gen. R. 32. 8. 2

8

4

6

y

7

8

9

10

141

THE RABBINIC NOAH

God made a covenant with Noah before the flood, Gen. 6 : 1 8 , so that the produce taken in would not rot or change its characteristics. ) Without it, Noah could not have successfully made the ark, or kept out the giants and animals. ) The seven days in the ark prior to the flood lent itself to numerous interpretations. Corresponding to the time one mourns for a dead relative, God mourned for His world seven days before He destroyed it. ) These were seven extra days of grace to the wicked generation. ) During this time God gave them a taste of the world to come so that they could know the good from which they withheld themselves. He caused the sun to rise in the west and set in the east as a warning, yet they did not repent. ) Rab (BA. 1) said they were the days of mourning for Methuselah. ) R. Levi (PA. 3) said God shut Noah in as a king might do who had declared a general execution and who wished to protect a friend. ) Those animals that were not taken into the ark remained about the ark seven days. When the flood finally broke, 700,000 of the men who had remained impenitent until this time implored Noah to grant them protection. Upon his refusal, they attempted to take the ark by storm, but the wild beasts set on them and they were killed. ) The forty days of rain correspond with the sin after the forty days Moses was on the mountain, according to R. Simeon b. Yohai (T. 4), and with the sin which defaces the embryo which is forty days in taking shape, according to R. Johanan (PA. 2). ) Whether the planets ceased to function during the flood was dex

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

*) Gen. R. 3 1 . 1 2 ; cf. Ps.-Philo, Bib. Ant. iii. 4 , where the covenant is to destroy the earth. ) Gen. £ . 3 1 . 1 2 . *) Gen. R. 32. 7 ; cf. T. B. Sanh. 108b. *) T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b ; ARN. 3 2 ; cf. T. Ps.-Jon., Gen. 7 : 4 , and Philo,QG. ii. 1 3 . The idea o f an extra period of grace is taken up by Ephraem Syrus, Comm. in Gen. 6 : 1 1 (CSCO. 72. 4 8 ) ; cf. L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern (Berlin: S. Calvary and Co., 1900), p. 79. *) T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b ; ARN. 32. ) T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b ; ARN. 3 2 ; Gen. R. 32. 7 ; 3. 6. L X X figures would demand that Methuselah survive the flood 1 4 years. In the M T . his death corresponds with the flood year. Cf. Augustine, Civ. Dei 1 5 . 1 0 - 1 1 (CSEL. 40. 2. 76-79). ) Gen. R. 32. 8 ; cf. Ex. R. 2 9 . 7 for a different homily. ) Sefer Hayashar, Noah (EBI. II, 32); Gen. R. 32. 1 4 ("Ktav" edit.). Ephraem surmised that God closed the ark lest the wanton ones should break the door in; cited in L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den kirchenvatern, p. 8 1 ; cf. Legends of the Jews, V , 1 7 8 , n. 2 5 . ) Gen. R. 32. 5. This Midrash may have been known to Ephraem; see L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern, pp. 79-80. 2

6

7

8

9

142

THE RABBINIC NOAH

bated with R. Johanan (PA. 2) and R. Joshua insisting that they ceased. R. Elieser insisted that they did function. R. Jonathan (PA. 1) contended that they functioned, but could not be seen. *) Water not only had its destructive power, but those of the flood were boiling hot as a fitting punishment for the inflamed sensuous behaviour of the sinners. R. Johanan (PA. 2) taught, drawing the idea from the phrase "through his heat were they consumed," that God boiled every drop in Gehenna before he brought it down on them. ) R. Hisda (BA. 3) attained the same concept through an analogy of Gen. 8:1 and Est. 7 : 1 0 where *ptt occurs. "The waters cooled down" (A.V. "abated"), he translated. ) The great hot foun­ tains at Biram, the gulf of Gaddor, and the caravan spring of Paneas were not stopped up when the flood came to an end. ) R. Berekiah (PA. 5), making an analogy dependent on the word "great," said in R. Johanan's (PA. 2) name that the generation of the flood was punished by fire as were the people of Sodom. ) R. Judah (T. 4) insisted that the water of the flood was not on a level, but was only fifteen cubits deep at any given point. R. Nehemiah (T. 4) said it was fifteen cubits over the mountains and immeasurable over the plains. ) But as high as the flood was, R. Eleazar of Modi'im (T. 2) insisted that it did not compare with the depth o# the manna in the wilderness. Concerning the former, "windows of heaven" is used, while "doors," Ps. 78:23, refer to the latter. In rabbinic thought, this is four times greater. ) That the water extended down into Samaria is reflected in the con­ troversy of R. Jonathan (PA. 1) with the Samaritan who insisted that Mt. Gerizim was not covered. A donkey driver refuted the Samaritan with the phrase "all the high mountains were covered." ) Resh Lakish (PA. 2) and R. Johanan (PA. 2) differ over whether the 2

8

4

5

6

7

8

*) Gen. R. 34. 1 1 ; cf. 2 5 . 2 ; cf. Radak {EBI. II, 51). Philo, Abr. 4 3 , contends that they functioned, but could not be seen. Cf. also Bk. of Adam and Eve, iii. 9. Gaius of Rome makes the specific point that they were not done away; see R. Grant, Second Cent. Christ. (London: SPCK., 1946), pp. 105-106. ) Lev. R.7.6; Eccl. R. 9. 4. § 1 ; cf. Gen. R. 2 8 . 8 where the same is used to p r o v e that He will do this to them at the resurrection. ) T. B. Rosh Hashana 1 2 a ; Zeb. 1 1 3 b ; Sanh. 1 0 8 b ; PRE. 22. ) T. B. Sanh. 108a; cf. Gen. R. 33. 4. ) Gen. R. 4 9 . 5. ) Gen. R. 32 1 1 ; cf. T. B. Yoma 76a. ) Mekilta Vayassa* 4. 82-89; Ex. R. 2 5 . 7. ) Deut. R.3.6; Cant. R. 4. 4. § 5. a

8

4

6

6

7

8

THE RABBINIC NOAH

143

2

land of Israel was included, for R. Johanan insisted that it was not. ) R. Levi (PA. 3) agreed appealing to Ez. 22:23, "a l a n d . . . not rained upon in the day of indignation." ) Some authorities insisted that the flood did not reach as high as the Garden of Eden. ) Though man had not been created first, it is deduced from the order of mention that he came first in punishment, ) for he had been the first to sin. ) Various figures are used to express the com­ pleteness of the destruction. R. Huna (BA. 2) and R. Jeremiah (c. 320), in R. Kahana's (PA. 2) name, insist that even the three handbreadths of the earth's surface which the plow turns were washed away. R. Levi (PA. 3), in R. Johanan's (PA. 2) name, derived from Job 1 4 : 1 9 that the nether millstone was dissolved. ) R. Judah b. R. Simon (PA. 4) said the dust of Adam was dissolved, but this the congregation refused. ) R. Simeon b. Jehozadak (A. 1) said the nut of the spinal column from which God will cause men to blossom forth in the future was dissolved. ) The world had been brought back to the state it knew before the creation of man. ) R. Judah b. R. Simon (PA. 4) found in Gen. 1:2 an allusion to the flood and to the spirit of God coming over the waters at its end. ) Cain, who had been kept in suspense about his destiny up to this time, was swept away, according to R. Samuel ) and according to R. Levi (PA. 3), the latter of whom was teaching in the name of Resh Lakish (PA. 2) and interpreting Oljrn in the sense of "rebellion." ) R. Berekiah (PA. 4, 5) interpreted Dlp^n in the sense familiar to us: 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

u

12

!) T. B. Zeb. 113b. ) Gen. R. 33. 6 ; PRE. 2 3 . ») Gen. R.33. 6 ; Lev. R. 3 1 . 1 0 ; Cant. R. 1. 1 5 . § 4 ; 4. 1. § 2 ; cf. PRE. 23 and Nachmonides, Gen. 8 : 1 1 . Some Syrian fathers shared this view, among w h o m was Mar Ephrem who said it only reached the outer confines of Paradise. Rabban, on the other hand, insisted that Paradise was covered; see A . Levene, op. cit., p. 8 3 ; cf. D. Gerson, Die Commentarien des Ephraem Syrus im Verhaltniss %ur judischen Exegese (Breslau: Schletter'schen Buchhandlung, 1868), p. 1 2 . The viewpoint that it was covered is likely represented by III Bar. 4 : 1 0 . ) T. B. Berakoth 6 1 a ; 'Erubin 18a. «) Mekilta, Pisha 7 . 3 6 ff.; Num. R. 9 . 1 8 . •) Gen. R. 2 8 . 3 ; 3 1 . 7 ; Est. R. 6. 3 ; Lev. R. 3 1 . 1 0 . ) Gen. R. 2 8 . 3 ; R. Judah's view is directly opposed to Bk. of Adam and Eve iii. 7 where the body of Adam is taken into the ark. «) Gen. R. 2 8 . 3. ) Lam. R. 1. 1 7 . § 5 2 ; cf. Gen. R. 5. 1 ; 28. 2. ) Gen. R. 2. 3. ) Eccl. A. 6. 3 . § 1. ) Gen. R. 32. 5 ; 22. 1 2 ; Eccl. R. 6. 3. § 1 ; Ex. R. 3 1 . 1 7 , and some mss. of T. Benj. 7. 4. a

4

7

9

10

11

12

144

THE RABBINIC NOAH

x

"whatever exists," ( n w p ) . ) R . Abin (I: 355; II: 370) took it to be the human race which upholds the world. R . Eliezer said it meant money which gives standing to its owner's feet. ) That even Noah suffered some, coughing blood on account of the cold, is deduced from the particle of Gen. 7:23. ) In addition the lion struck him while in the ark, leaving him unfit to serve in the priesthood. Other authorities taught that the blow came when the lion was leaving the ark. ) Fish, however, were not included in the destruction, since Scripture says "on dry land," said R . Hisda (BA. 3). ) Some insist they would have been gathered into the ark, but they fled to the Mediterranean. ) The dead who perished in the flood sank or were emptied out in Babylon, according to R . Johanan (PA. 2) and R . Simeon b. Lakish (PA. 2). The former argues on the word nViS, Is. 44:27, and V?Vs (to sink), and the latter argues on and TOM Q W (empty out). ) Life in the ark was without doubt a trying experience. That cohabitation of male and female was forbidden was taught by R . Judah b. R . Simon ( c 320) and R . Hanan in the name of R . Samuel b. R . Isaac (PA. 3), ) and by R . Johanan (PA. 2). ) This is reached by observing that the wives are not mentioned in the immediate connec­ tion with their husbands in Gen. 6 : 1 8 , but are in Gen. 8:16. Three culprits in the lack of continence were Ham, the raven, and the dog, each of which received an appropriate punishment. ) Sefer Hayashar 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

x

) Gen. R. 32. 5 ; cf. Eccl. R. 6. 3. § 1. ) Eccl. R. 6. 3. § 1. R. Eliezer is punning on the verb Oil?. ) Gen. R. 32. 1 1 . ) Gen. R. 30. 6 ; cf. Lev. R. 20. 1 ; Tanh. B. I, 3 8 ; see L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (Phila.: J e w . Pub. S o c , 1955), V , 182. ) T. B. Zeb. 1 1 3 b ; Sanh. 108a; cf. Augustine, Civ. Dei 1 5 . 27 (CSEL. 4 0 . 2. 1 2 1 ) , w h o exempts both fish and water birds. ) Gen. R. 32. 1 1 . ) Lam. R., Proem 2 3 ; Eccl. R. 1 2 . 7. %\\T.B. Sabbath 1 1 3 b ; Zeb. 1 1 3 a , b. ) Gen. R. 3 1 . 1 2 ; 34. 7 ; / . Taan. 1. 6 (T.S. 6. 2 0 0 ; EBI. II, 1 5 ; cf. II, 4 4 , 4 5 ) ; PRE. 23; cf. Rashi (EBI. II, 4 3 ) ; and Philo, QG. ii. 49. ) T. B. Sanh. 108b. ) T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b ; / . Taan. 1. 6, where the statement is attributed to R. Hiyya b. Ba; and Gen. R. 3 6 . 7 . This ascetic note had a certain appeal to ascetic tendencies in the church and is commented on by a number of church fathers: Origen, Selecta in Gen. 53 (PG. 1 2 . 1 0 5 ) ; Julius Africanus, Chron. 4 (PG. 1 0 . 6 8 ) ; Hippolytus, Arabic Frag, to Pent. II, Gen. 7:6 (GCS. I. 2. 88); John of Damascus, De fide orth. iv. 2 4 (PG. 94. 1208 C); see also L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern, pp. 8 1 - 8 3 , and the Arabic ms. cited by J . G. Frazer, Folklore in the O.T. 1 , 1 4 6 ; cf. also Bk. of Adam and Eve iii, 8 ; Hilary, Tract, myst. \. 1 3 (SC. 1 9 . 2

8

4

8

6

7

8

9

10

y

145

THE RABBINIC NOAH

(EBI. II, 32) speaks of the lions* roaring and the wolves* howling as each animal vented its agony through its own proper means. Noah and his sons thought death was near and cried to God. ) There was also the "stench of the lions" to endure. ) R. Hana b. Bizna (BA. 3) said the animals had to be fed at the times they normally ate, whether day or night. Noah did not know what to feed the chameleon until one day he let a worm drop from a pomegranate which it ate. After that he grew worms for it. The lion had a fever and so required little food. The phoenix made no demands, not wishing to bother Noah. He in return prayed that it not die. ) In caring for them all, Noah was the Lord's herdsman. ) For twelve months he was so busy he could not sleep. ) All sources agree that the flood covered twelve months. ) However, the point of beginning was heatedly debated. R. Judah (T. 4) insisted that the year of the flood was not included in Noah's total years, while R. Nehemiah (T. 4) insisted that it is counted in the total chronological scheme of the w o r l d . ) While one source states that the exact day of the beginning is not given, ) R. Eliezer (T. lst-2nd cent.) insisted that the flood began in Marheshwan and then decreased until Ab and finally dried up in Tishri. ) R. Joshua (T. lst-2nd cent.) said it began on the seventeenth of Iyar. The rabbis favored Eliezer, but the Talmud admits that some follow Joshua. ) The x

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

y

10

1 0 1 ) . It served Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatechesis 1 4 (PG. 33. 355 A ) , as an argu­ ment that men and women should not sit together in the church. The Apoc. of Paul 50 expands this ascetic period to cover Noah's behaviour during the entire period while the ark was being built. ) Origen, Horn, in Gen. ii. 1 (GCS. 29. 27) knows a tradition that the animals were kept silent. Ephraem Syrus, Nisibene Hymns i. 1 0 (NPNF. ser. ii. 1 3 . 168), said: "Noah stood between the terrible waves that were without and the destroying mouths that were within. The waves tossed him and the mouths dismayed him." ) PRE. 23. ) T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b ; cf. Gen. R. 29. 4. ) Lev. £ . 1 . 9 . ) T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b ; Tanh. B. Noah 3 1 ; Midrash Ps. on 3 7 : 1 . ) Lam. R. 1. 1 2 . § 4 0 ; Gen. R. 28. 8 ; 30. 6 ; 33. 7 ; 34. 1 ; Num. R. 1 0 . 2 ; this is the opinion of R. Akiba in M. Eduyoth 2. 1 0 . ) Gen. R. 32. 6 ; T. B. Rosh Hashana l l b - 1 2 a . ) Num. R. 1. 5. ) Gen. R. 33. 7 ; 22. 4 ; this is the view of T. Ps.-Jon., Gen. 7 : 1 1 ; Josephus, Ant. i. 3. 3 ; and PRE. 23. Seder Olam 4 has the 40 days end in Kislev in harmony with this view; the 1 5 0 days end on the first of Sivan. The ark rested on the Mt. on the 17th of Sivan. The earth was finally dry in the month of Marheshwan. ) T. B. Rosh Hashana l l b - 1 2 a ; cf. Philo, QG. ii. 1 7 , 4 7 , and Shadal (EBI. II, 3 1 ) . The Syrian Fathers have the flood begin in the summer so that no one x

2

3

4

5

t

6

7

8

9

10

146

THE RABBINIC NOAH

fact that the earth was not dry until the 27th day of the second month, though Noah went into the ark on the 17th, is explained to be due to the fact that the solar year is eleven days longer than the lunar year. *) The ark came to rest on Ararat which is the mountain range of Cordyene. ) When Noah was ready to send the raven forth, according to R. Judan (PA. 4) in the name of R. Judah b. R. Simon (PA. 4), the raven argued back (deduced from a supposed relation of 2W\ with TWn), that God hated him since only a few unclean animals were taken into the ark. Noah also hated him, for if he sent him out and an accident should occur, there would be one less species. He also suggested that perhaps Noah was lewdly interested in the female raven. Noah replied with a kal we-homer that he had been con­ tinent in the ark. ) Elsewhere he had insisted that the raven was good for nothing, but God had commanded him to take the raven back because it was needed to feed Elijah. ) In Pirke de R.Eliezer the raven never returns to the ark, but feeds on dead bodies. ) 2

3

4

5

R. Judah b. Nahman (PA. 3) in the name of Resh Lakish (PA. 2) said the dove would not have returned had she found a place of rest. ) She was a symbol of Israel who would find no resting place in exile. R. Jose b. R. Hanina (PA. 2) insisted on the basis of "yet another" (Gen. 8:12 ff.) that there was a total of three periods of seven days involved in the post-flood episodes. ) The source from whence the dove obtained the olive branch brought controversy. R. Abba bar Kahana (BA. 4) insisted she brought it from the young shoots of the land of Israel. R, Levi (PA. 3) contended for the Mt. of Olives which had not been submerged. R. Birai (PA. 4-5) said she brought it from the Garden of Eden. ) *pD (E.V. "torn"), according to R. Eleazar 6

7

8

will think that it was accidental; see A . Levene, op. cit. p. 1 8 8 . Hippolytus, Arabic Frag, to Pent., Gen. 8 : 1 (GCS. 1. 2. 90), spells the name "Ijar," but Ephraem spells it "jar"; see Comm.in Gen. 6: 1 2 (CSCO. 72. 4 8 ) ; cf. L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern (Berlin: S. Calvary and Co., 1900), p. 80. !) Gen. R. 33. 7. ) Gen. R. 33. 4. ) Gen. R. 33. 5 ; / . Taan. 1 . 6 ; T. B. Sanh. 108b ascribes the view to Resh Lakish. ) Gen. R. 33. 5 ; Shadal has the raven go forth from the ark for good; while Rashi has it flying around the ark but not going on its errand because of its anxiety for its mate; see EBI. II, 38. ) This is a common assumption: PRE. 2 3 ; Augustine, C. Faustum 1 2 . 2 0 (CSEL. 25. 3 4 8 ) ; Sulpicius Severus, Chron. i. 3 (CSEL. I. 5). ) Gen. R. 33. 6. ) Gen. R. 36. 6. ) Gen. R. 33. 6 ; cf. Philo,QG. ii. 42, 47. R. Levi's view is repeated in T. Ps.9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

147

THE RABBINIC NOAH

(PA. 3), making an analogy with w n w i , Prov. 30:8, implies that it was for food. The dove preferred bitter food from God to the sweetest food from man. *) Another, basing an analogy upon the same ex­ pression in Gen. 37:33, insisted that implies that Noah upbraided the dove for not having left the olive to grow into a great tree. ) It was just the moment of the exit from the ark which is represented in the mosaic floor panel of the Jerash Synagogue discovered in 1928 by the joint expedition of Yale University and the British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem. The surviving rectangular panel displays the heads of two men over which is written in Greek: "Shemand Japheth." A dove with a twig in its beak sits above them. There are also three long rows of fowl, beasts, cattle, and creeping things. The panel is too fragmentary to support any dogmatic interpretation. The synagogue was built apparently in the first half of the fifth cen­ tury. It is also reported that the Jewish tombs in Palestine use the artistic representation of Noah. ) Noah remained in the ark until commanded to go out. He said, I entered with permission of God, and I will go out by permission. ) Another interpretation emphasizes that he would not go out until God swore that there would be no more flood. ) The rabbis arrived at the idea that Noah did not immediately begin conjugal relationships by a comparison of Gen. 8:16 with 8 : 1 7 . R. Judah (T.4) took this to be a fault for which he was punished in the episode with Ham. R. Nehemiah (T. 4) interpreted it to his credit since God spoke to him again in Gen. 9:8, a thing He only does for a righteous man. ) 2

3

4

5

6

Jon., Gen. 8 : 1 1 . Theophrastus asserts that the olive puts shoots under water; see A . Dillmann, Genesis (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1897), I, 286. Strabo says that the olive is found in Armenia; see A . Heidel, The Gilgamesb Epic (Chicago: U. Press, 1954), p. 252. The medieval commentator Ramban suggested that the trees were not uprooted by the flood (EBI. II, 40).This is evidently the view earlier expressed by Sulpicius Severus when he stated that the olive leaf was a sign that the tops of trees could now be seen, Chron. 1. 3 (CSEL. 1 . 5 ) . !) T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b ; Erub. 1 8 b ; Lev. R. 3 1 . 1 0 ; Cant. R. 1. PRE. 23. ) Gen. R. 33. 6. ) E. L. Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece 1 9 3 0 ; London: Humphrey Milford, 1934), pp. 35-37; E. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (N. Y . : Pantheon 2 5 9 - 2 6 0 ; 9 9 , n. 2 7 1 . ^ ) Gen. R. 3 4 . 4 ; Eccl. R. 1 0 . 4. § 1. ^ *) Gen. R. 3 4 . 6. ^) Gen. R. 3 5 . 1.

1 5 . § 4 ; 4. 1 . § 2 ;

a

3

4

6

(Schweich Lectures, R. Goodenough, Books, 1953), I,

148

THE RABBINIC NOAH

Noah arrived at the obligation to build an altar, Gen. 8:20, by a process of deduction. Surely God had commanded more clean animals than unclean animals to be preserved because he desired sacrifice. *) Aboth R. Nathan § 1, on the other hand, has Noah to offer a bullock whose horns extend beyond his hoofs. R. Eliezer b. Jacob (T. 1) insisted that the offering was made on the great altar in Jerusalem. ) Noah, when offering his sacrifice, put on the high priestly garments that had been given to Adam following his sin and handed down to the firstborn in each generation. Noah in turn passed them on to Shem who, though not the firstborn, was the progenitor of the patriarchs. ) Other sources assert that Noah was unfit to serve in the priesthood because of his wound from the lion and that it. was really Shem who made the offering. ) 2

3

4

Despite the sacrifice's not being so pleasing to God as those later to be offered by Israel, ) the blessing of God (Gen. 9:1) came as a reward for the sacrifice. ) The righteous, unlike the wicked, give orders to their hearts; hence God spoke to his heart saying He would not again curse the earth. That curse sent forth in the days of Adam would suffice. ) The fact that God repeated the promise that water would come no more, once in Gen. 9 : 1 1 and once in 9 : 1 5 , makes it a binding oath according to the view of Raba (BA. 4). ) The bow in the clouds was in response to Noah's lack of faith which demanded a further sign despite all those which he had enjoyed 5

6

7

8

!) Gen. R. 34. 9 ; Ex. R. 50. 2 ; cf. Rashi (EBI. II, 4 6 ) ; Bk. of Adam and Eve iii. 1 1 has the Word of G o d to instruct Noah to offer clean animals. ) Gen. R. 34. 9. Miscellaneous references to the building of the altar are found in Num. R. 1 0 . 1 and Cant. R. 5. 1 5 . § 1. *) Num. R. 4. 8. «) Lev. R. 20. 1 ; Eccl. R. 9. 2. § 1 ; Gen. R. 30. 6 ; Tan. Noah 9 (EBI. II, 3 1 ) . This controversy has left no echoes in pre-rabbinic or Christian literature which discuss the sacrifice: Jub. 6 : 2 - 3 ; Philo,QG. ii. 5 0 ; Josephus, Ant. i. 3. 7 ; Ps.Philo, Bib. Ant. iii. 6-8; Jerome, Ep. 1 2 3 . 1 1 (CSEL. 56. 8 5 ) ; Augustine, Civ. Dei X5. 1 6 (CSEL. 40. 2. 95). ) Lev. R. 7. 4. ) Gen. R. 34. 1 2 . Later Midrash considers that the blessing was a requirement for reproduction; see Midrash HaGadhol; Midrash Agada, Gen. 9 : 1 ; PRE. 2 3 . In a comparable form the idea appears in Hippolytus who sees in the spoken word power which enabled Noah's sons to produce seventy-two children, Elenchosx. 31 (GCS. 26. 287); cf. Aphraates, Horn. 1 8 . 2 (TU. III. 3. 2 9 1 ) ; Salvian the Presbyter, De gubern. Dei i. 3 5 (CSEL. 8. 17). ) Gen. R. 34. 1 0 . ) T. B. Sbebu*oth 36a. Miscellaneous appeals to the covenant made with Noah that there would be no more flood are to be found in: Cant. R. 1 . 1 4 . § 3 ; 2 . 1 5 . § 1 ; Gen. R. 44. 5 ; Ex. R. 1. 9, 1 8 ; 22. 1 ; Lam. R. 5. 2 1 . § 1 ; Mekilta, Amalek 3. 1 4 ; T. B. Baba Bathra 74a; Mo ed Katan 25b. 2

5

6

7

8

c

149

THE RABBINIC NOAH

in the ark. *) The rabbis understood that the rainbow as a sign of the covenant was only needful in a wicked generation. Based on the resemblance of TWj? and *nw»p they saw in it a faint resemblance of God. ) The covenant made, said R. Judan (PA. 4) in R. Aha's (PA. 4) name, is not eternal, but is only for the time the earth re­ mains; or it is as long as day and night endure, said R. Huna (BA. 2) in the name of R. Aha (PA. 4). ) Already in the latter part of Isaiah this oath is appealed to as an example of an unchanging promise of God: "As I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth." The real problem is, what if men should prove wicked again? In such a case God would destroy only that part of mankind. The promise did not exclude the possibility of loc&l floods. ) Some rabbis considered that the promise of God had been abused by the wicked. The Egyptians thought of drowning the Israelites because they knew God would not punish them with a flood for doing it. ) But the promise did not prevent there being a flood in one land. In this case, however, the Egyptians fell into the sea as a fitting punishment. ) A bit of Jewish and Christian polemic is evident in the treatment of the covenant with Noah. Aphraates sets forth the history of the world in a series of successive covenants. Adam's covenant is replaced by Noah's, then Noah's by Abraham's, and on to the New Covenant. ) The rabbis reply with an Haggadah in which Abraham protests to God that a later man might arise and Abraham's covenant have to give way as Noah's had done. God promises that righteous men and protectors of Abraham's covenant will be raised up. ) Thus the rabbis both affirm the eternal validity of the law and deny the efficacy of the atoning death of Jesus. R. Aha (PA. 4) interpreted the statements of the blessing, Gen. 8:22, to be hardships: bearing children and burying them, fever and 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

J

) Ex. R. 9 . 1 . ) Gen. R. 35. 3 ; cf. Bahya (EBI. II, 63). ) Gen. R. 34. 1 1 . ) Philo, QG. ii. 63, 54. ) Ex. R. 1 . 1 8 . ) Ex. R. 1. 9 ; 22. 1 ; Cant. R. 2. 1 5 . § 1. For other homilies on the passage of Isaiah, see Gen. R. 34. 6 ; Lev. R. 1 0 . 1 ; Lam. R. 5. 22. § 1 ; T. B. Sanh. 99a; Sofah 1 1 a ; Shebu'oth 36a; Mekilta, Bahodesh 5. 55«F.; PRE. 23. ) Aphraates, Horn. 1 1 . 1 1 ; see M. Simon, Verus Israel (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1 9 4 8 ) , p. 1 0 1 . ) Cant. R. 1. 1 4 . § 3 ; Gen. R. 44. 5 ; T. B. Megilla 3 1 b ; Ta amth 27b. 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

c

150

THE RABBINIC NOAH

x

ague, and degradation of birds. ) The statement of Gen. 9:1 is con­ sidered to be a commandment to procreate in which both men and women are included, but with special obligation upon man. ) Others said that only the dread and fear of man came upon the animals. Dominion over them which had been given to Adam, Gen. 1:28 f., did not come. ) Flesh had not been permitted to Adam, according to R. Jose b. R. Abin (A. 5) in R. Johanan's name (PA. 2), but to the children of Noah it is permitted. ) On the other hand others insisted that from the beginning of the world all that was edible was permitted. ) According to R. Hanania b. Gamaliel (T. 3), Gen. 9:4 prohibits blood drawn from a living animal. ) Heterogeneous breeding and emasculation is forbidden by the words "after their families" of Gen. 8 : 1 9 . ) Suicide is prohibited by the decree against shedding blood, ) but the particle ak provided that one could take his own life as Saul did (I Sam. 31:4), or be a martyr as were the three Hebrew children. ) The beasts of whose hand blood will be required are the kingdoms of Dan. 2 and 7. R. Levi (PA. 3), by reading 0Y7X instead of OIK, 2

3

4

6

6

7

8

9

!) Gen. R. 34. 1 1 . ) PZ. Noah (EBI. II, 52, § 2 ) ; Ps.-Philo, Bib. Ant. iii. 1 1 ; Or. Sib. 1. 315-325 and Bk. of Adam and Eve iii. 1 2 give the force of a commandment to the statement. Rashi (EBI. II, 59) attempts to harmonize the idea of command and blessing by attaching significance to the repetition in the text. Verse one is a blessing. Verse seven is a command. ) Gen. R. 34. 1 2 . In Christian discussion of this matter, it is pointed out that the fear was limited to animals. Man is not to be feared by man, nor should he wish that man fear him; see Gregory the Great, Regulae Pastoralis ii. 6 (PL. 11. 34). Another argued that man proved unworthy of this part of the blessing. His sin undermined his authority and dissipated the fear of the animals. God is not obli­ gated to carry out a promise when man is unworthy; see Chrysostom, In Matt., horn. 64. 1 (PG. 58. 6 1 0 ) . The present attitude of animals towards man is a constant reminder of his ancient sin; see Chrysostom, De statuis horn. 8. 1 (PG. 49. 97). ) Gen. R. 34. 1 3 . ) Tanhuma, Lev., end of Schemini, as cited by L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern (Berlin: S. Calvary and Co., 1900), pp. 83-84; cf. Gen. R. 1 6 . 6 ; Justin M., Dial. 2 0 ; Clement of A . , Paed. ii. 1 . 1 6 (CSEL. 1 2 . 1 6 5 ) ; and Aphraates, Horn. 1 5 . 4 (TU. III. 3 . 2 6 1 ) . ) T. B. Sanh. 5 6 b , 59a; cf. Rashi and Sforno (EBI. II, 54); T. Ps.-Jon., Gen. 9:4. ) Gen. R. 34. 8. ) T. B. Baba Kama 9 1 b . ) Gen. R. 34. 1 3 . 2

8

4

5

6

7

8

9

151

THE RABBINIC NOAH

understood it to be required of Edom by which he meant Rome. The "man's brother," then, refers to Israel. ) Shedding of blood impairs the image of God since man is made in it. R. Hanina (c. 225) understood that the riding of one judge was sufficient to condemn a man for murder from the singular BPK, "man," Gen. 9:6. Murder through the hand of an agent is condemned. Slaughter of the embryo and strangling were prohibited by understood as "within man," taking the 3 as locative instead of instrumental. R. Levi (PA. 3) punned on DTK KTttD to deduce that his blood would be shed when man comes. ) If not punished, he will be slain at the final judgment. ) To shed blood is to impair God's image, said R. Akiba (T. 3). The close proximity of mention of God's image and the command to be fruitful and multiply suggested that to fail to procreate was the equivalent of bloodshed. ) It was a special blessing from God that He made known that man was in His image. ) There seems to be little speculation in the early sources over what became of the ark. One passage assumes that Sennacherib could find a plank from it. ) We encounter an altogether different evaluation of Noah when we turn to the vine growing episode. The tabbis rendered Gen. 9:20 "and Noah the husbandman was degraded (b^rma) and debased (pVin)." They found no good in Cain, Noah, and Uzziah, all of whom had a passion for agriculture. ) R. Johanan (PA. 2) called attention to the fact that 11 occurs fourteen times in the passage, which he proceeded to compare to *»1 (woe). ) R. Abba b. Kahana (PA. 3) insisted that he got his vine shoot from those he had taken with him in the ark. ) R. Hiyya b. Ba (T. 5) contended that the plant­ ing, drinking, and humiliation all took place in one day. His drunkx

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

x

) Gen. R. 34. 1 3 ; cf. Ibn Ezra and Radak w h o more literally interpret that G o d will order another animal to kill the animal that kills a man (EBI. II. 56). ) Gen. R. 34. 1 4 ; t. B. Sanh. 57b. ) Gen. R. 34. 1 4 ; cf. T. Ps.-Jon., Gen. 9. 6. ) Gen. R. 34. 1 4 . ) M. Aboth 3. 1 5 . •) T. B. Sanh. 96a. ) Gen. R. 2 2 . 3 ; 36. 3 ; cf. Rashi and Sforno (EBI. II, 67). Philo, Plant. 1 4 0 , took the passage to mean "begin"; ci.Jer. Targum, Gen. 9 : 2 0 . ) Gen. R. 36. 4 ; the view is that o f U b a ? t h e Galilean in T. B. Sanh. 70a. ) Gen. R. 3 6 . 3 ; cf. Rashi (EBI. II, 68); Philo, QG. ii. 1 5 , exempts seeds under the ground from the destructiveness of the flood. Sforno (EBI. II, 30) exempts even those plants above the ground. 2

8

4

5

7

8

9

c

152

THE RABBINIC NOAH

enness is roundly denounced by all, even to saying that he caused exile for himself and his descendants. ) "Wine caused a division between Noah and his sons in the matter of slavery," they say. ) A third of the world was cursed. ) He should have learned from Adam whose transgression was also caused by wine. Solomon, later, admits that he should have learned from Noah. ) Drunkenness is compared to idolatry. ) The rabbis tend to interpret "his tent," Gen. 9 : 2 1 , as his wife's tent. ) Though Shem is frequently mentioned first in the lists of the sons of Noah, R. Nehemiah (T. 4) in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jose the Galilean (T. 4) insisted that Japheth was the eldest son. ) Noah is said to have begotten a son when he was 500 years old, and to have come out of the ark at the age of 600. Two years later Shem begat Arpachshad (Gen. 1 1 : 1 0 ) , a fact which would demand that he be be­ gotten when Noah was 502 years old. ) Gen. 10:21 is rendered, "Shem... the brother of Japheth the elder." ) Several reasons are given for the order of names. The boys are enumerated in the order of wis­ dom; ) Shem was more righteous; was born circumcised; God is called the God of Shem; Shem was minister in the high priesthood; and the temple was built in his territory. Bar Huta (PA. 4 (?)) taught that the flood had been postponed 338 years, which is the numerical value of Shem's name. ) The patriarchs were descended from him. ) J

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

*) Gen. R. 36. 4 ; cf. Midrash Mishle 30. 2 (EBI. II, 5, § 16). ) Lev. R. 1 2 . 1. *) Num. R. 10. 2. ) T. B. Sanh. 70a-b. ) Midrash Hagadol (EBI. II, 6 9 , § 55). •) Gen. R. 36. 4. This episode is also made into an affair with his wife by Bk. of Adam and Eve iii. 1 3 and by Jerome, Ep. 22. 8 (CSEL. 54. 1 5 5 ) , w h o says, "self indulgence culminated in lust." ) Gen. R. 2 6 . 2. Arguing from the fact that Shem begat Arpachshad at the age of one hundred, t w o years after the flood, it was deduced that Noah must have been 502 at the time of Shem's birth. Therefore the son begotten when Noah was 500 must have been Japheth; see T. B. Sanh. 6 9 b ; Sefer Hayashar, Noah (EBI. II, 1 8 ) ; RaMBaN (EBI. II, 6). Philo, QG. ii. 7 9 , knew the tradition that Japheth was the oldest but personally thought it made little difference. «) T. B. Sanh. 6 9 b ; Gen. R. 37. 7. ) Num. R. 4. 8. The early Syrian church fathers agree that Japheth is the eldest, see A . Levene, op. cit. p. 84, but say that Shem was made eldest because of his familiarity with God and because Christ was destined to arise from him. ) T. B. Sanh. 69b. ) Gen. R. 2 6 . 3. ) Num. R.4.S; cf. Rashi (EBI. 1 , 1 8 0 ) . 2

4

5

7

9

y

10

u

ia

153

THE RABBINIC NOAH

Ham is called the youngest son in the sense of being the worthless son. *) The crime of Ham is variously interpreted. Some go no further than his ridiculing his father's attempt at begetting a fourth son. ) But the general trend is toward either sexual abuse, for which Rab (BA. 1) contends, or toward emasculation of his father, which was the position of Samuel (BA. 2-3). ) This is probably implied in the phrase "a disqualifying blemish" which Noah is said to receive. ) The rabbis decide that both indignities were perpetrated. ) This Haggadah is not in agreement with that which had the lion to attack Noah. ) It is to be remembered that some rabbis believed that Ham had not been continent in the a r k . ) 2

3

4

5

6

7

Shem and Japheth, in contrast, even covered their faces with their hands and walked backward to cover their father, giving him due respect. R. Judan (PA. 4) suggested that they used their prayer cloaks, while R. Huna (BA. 2) thought it was their breeches that made the covering. ) The curse on Canaan for Ham's sin caused considerable perplexity. Ham, having previously (Gen. 9:1) been blessed, could not now be cursed, said R. Judah (T. 4). ) R. Nehemiah (T. 4) argued that it was Canaan who had first seen Noah's shame and reported it to the others. ) R. Huna (BA. 2) in R. Joseph's name, seeing an example 8

9

10

*) Gen. R. 36. 7 ; cf. T. Ps.-Jon., Gen. 9 : 2 4 ; Rashi (EBI. 1 1 , 7 1 ) . This Haggadah was known to the Syrian Fathers who say, "Ham was called because of his sin, small" (A. Levene, op. cit., p. 84). ) Gen. R. 36. 5. Ridicule without explaining a basis is found in the phrases "making sport," PRE. 2 3 ; and "derisively jeering," Radak (EBI. II, 70). ) T. B. Sanh. 70a; Num. R. 1 0 . 2 ; Gen. R. 36. 3. Cf. expressions which insist that Noah had only three sons: "to teach that he had no other son," Midrash Hagadol, Noah (EBI. II, 6, § 2 1 ) ; and "only these three constituted his generations," Ramban and Tur (EBI. II, 6). Cf. also Theophilus, Ad Auto/, iii. 1 8 - 1 9 (ANF. II, 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 ) where Noah is called Eunuchos. ) Num. R. 1 0 . 2. ) T. B. Sanh. 70a; Gen. R. 3 6 . 3, 7 ; cf. PRE. 23 and Rashi where deed is Canaan's. •) Gen. R. 30. 6 ; Lev. R. 20. 1. ) T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b ; Gen. R. 36. 7. ) Gen. R. 36. 6. ) Gen. R. 36. 7. Justin knew this Haggadah; see supra, p. 1 1 4 . ) Gen. R. 36. 7 ; cf. 36. 2. Others who would have Canaan to be the culprit include Philo, LA. ii. 6 2 ; PRE. 2 3 ; Rashi (EBI. II, 69); Theodoretus, see L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada hei den Kirchenvatern (Berlin: S. Calvary and Co., 1900), p. 8 6 ; Ambrose, Ep. 37. 6 (PL. 1 6 . 1 1 3 1 ) ; Ephraem Syrus, Comm. in Gen. 7 : 3 (CSCO. 7 2 . 51-52); see D. Gerson, Die commentarien des Ephraem Syrus im Ver2

8

4

6

7

8

9

10

154

THE RABBINIC NOAH

of measure for measure punishment said, "Since you have prevented me from having a fourth son, I will curse your fourth son." ) Another teacher explains that Noah really meant to curse Ham. ) What the curse on Canaan involved was explained by R. Huna (PA. 3-4) in R. Joseph's (BA. 3) name, as referring to the fact that his seed would be ugly and dark-skinned. R. Hiyya (B-P. 3) and R. Levi ( c 200) take this consequence to have come through the failure of Ham to be continent in the ark, ) God's curse did not deprive him of his livelihood, said R. Jose (c. 150). ) A general curse on the slave is premised upon this verse. ) x

2

3

4

5

That greatness was conferred upon Shem is implied in the phrase, "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem," for ordinarily God's name is not spoken in connection with an individual until after that individual dies. ) Midrash Agada interprets that in the future Israel was to arise from Shem and was to receive the Law and declare the unity of G o d . ) Whether the "he" who dwells in the tents of Shem of Gen. 9:27 referred to God or to Japheth was disputed. R. Judah (T. 4), following the opinion of R. Samuel b. Gamaliel (T. 4), and Bar Kappara (T. 5), taking it to be Japheth, thought it meant that Greek could be used in the synagogue. ) R. Judan proved by it that a translation could be used. ) R. Simeon b. Lakish and T. Ps. -Jonathan, as we have earlier seen, insisted that it pointed to the adpiission of proselytes to the houses of study. ) Others took the antecedent of "he" to be the Shekinah which would be in the tents of Shem. R. Eleazar (PA-BA. 3) 6

7

8

9

10

haltniss judischen Exegese (Breslau: Schlechter'schen Buchhandlung, 1868), p. 2 7 . !) Gen. R. 3 6 . 7 ; cf. T. Ps.-Jon., Gen. 9 : 24-25. ) Num. R. 1 0 . 2 ; miscellaneous references to the curse are to be found in T. B. Horayoth 13a; Sanh. 9 1 a ; Mekilta, Pisha 12. 4 6 ; and Lev. R. 1 2 . 1 . ) Gen. R. 36. 7 ; T. B. Sanh. 1 0 8 b ; / . fa